WHO WAS JOSEPHS FATHER?
by
Eric Lyons, M.Min.
In his book, The Encyclopedia
of
Biblical Errancy, skeptic Dennis McKinsey
confidently
asserted that thecontradictory genealogies
found in Matthew
1 and Luke 3 open upa Pandoras box that
apologists would
just as soon remained closed forever (1995, p. 46).
One
contradiction he cited (p. 80) revolves around
the father of
Joseph. Whereas Matthew 1:16 states thatJacob
begot
Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus
who is
called Christ (emp. added), Luke 3:23 says,
Jesus Himself
began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being
(as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli
(emp.
added). How is it that Joseph could be the son of both
Jacob
and Heli? Is Mr. McKinsey correct? Do Christian
apologists
really shudder at the sound of Matthew 1 and Luke 3?
Do we
cower at the thought of having to explain their
differences?
Not at all.
The answer to this supposed contradiction is
relatively
simple: the first seventeen verses in the first
chapter of
Matthew give the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph,
while Luke
3 presents the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. Hence,
Jacob
is the father of Joseph (Matthew 1:16), while Heli is
the
father of Mary (Luke 3:23). If this is true, the
logical
question that both critics and serious Bible students
ask is
why Mary is not mentioned in Lukes genealogy? The
answer is
again quite simple: Luke follows the strict Hebrew
tradition
of mentioning only the names of males. Therefore, in
this
case, Mary is designated by her husbands name.
Lest you think it is unreasonable to conclude that
a
son-in-law could be called a son, remember that it is
recorded
in 1 Samuel 24:16 that King Saul (Davids
father-in-law
Samuel 18:27) called Davidson. The term
son actually has
a variety of meanings in the Bible. It can signify:
(1) son by
actual birth; (2) grandson; (3) descendent; (4)
son-in-law; or
(5) son by creation, as in the case of Adam (Luke
3:38). All
indications are that in Luke 3:23, the phraseson
of Heli
(literallyof Heli) refers to Helis
son-in-law, Joseph. The
following evidence clearly supports this
rationale.
- The two narrations of the virgin birth are from
two
different perspectives. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the
story only
from Josephs perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is
told wholly
from Marys point of view. It makes sense, then,
that
Matthew focused on Josephs lineage in his
genealogy,
whereas Luke paid careful attention to Marys
ancestors.
- Because the phraseas was supposed (Luke
3:23) is used
to describe Jesus relationship with his earthly
father, one
automatically should see that something is different
about
this genealogy from the one recorded in Matthew
chapter one.
The phraseJesus=85being (as was supposed)
the son of
Joseph (emp. added) is indicating that He was not
really
one of Josephs biological sons, even though the
public
commonly assumed such.
- Every name in the Greek text of Lukes
genealogy,
with the exception of Joseph, is preceded by
the
definite articlethe (e.g. the Heli, the
Matthat).
Although not obvious in our English translations,
this
stands out to anyone reading the Greek. As
nineteenth-century biblical scholar Frederic Godet
stated:
The omission of the article puts the name
(Joseph)
outside of the genealogical series (1890,
1:198,
emp. added). In fact, the parentheses in our
versions
containing the words(as was supposed), most
likely should
be extended to include the nameJoseph
(Lenski, 1961, p.
220). [Remember that parentheses have been added in
our
English Bibles by translators for the sake of
clarity. in
this situation, however, it seems translators should
have
extended the parentheses so that the text reads:
And Jesus
Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of
age,
being (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of
Heli,
the son of Matthat=85.] When ones studies take
him beyond
our English translations into the original language
of
Scripture (in this case, Greek), he begins to
realize all
the more that Lukes genealogy is tracing the line
of
Josephs wife, even though Josephs name is
used.
These two separate genealogies of Jesus Christ
were, in
fact, absolutely necessary in the establishment of
Christ as
the Messiah. The Messianic title,Son of David,
that so
frequently was applied to Christ, required dual proof
that:
(1) He was entitled to the throne, as Matthews
genealogy
indicates; and (2) He literally had descended from
David, as
Lukes genealogy demonstrates. The verses in Matthew
clearly
establish Christ as the legal heir to the throne by
tracing
His ancestry down through the royal line of the kings
of
Israel, with Lukes account demonstrating that He
was an
actual descendant of David (through Nathan, the
brother of
Solomon Chronicles 3:5). Jesus literally was born
from one
of Davids virgin9aughters.
REFERENCES
Godet, Frederic (1890), Gospel of Luke
(Edinburgh:
T&T Clark).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the
St.
Lukes Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of
Biblical
Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
CopyrightA9 2003 Apologetics
Press, Inc. All
rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the
Alleged
Bible Discrepancies section to be reproduced in
their
entirety, as long as the following stipulations are
observed:
(1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the
original
publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site
URL must be noted; (3) the authors
name must
remain attached to the materials; (4) any references,
footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must
be
included with any written reproduction of the article;
(5)
alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g.,
photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must
be
reproduced exactly as they appear in the original);
(6)
serialization of written material (e.g., running an
article in
several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of
the
material is made available, without editing, in a
reasonable
length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may
not be
offered for sale or included in items offered for
sale; and
(8) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form
for
posting on Web sites (although links to articles on
the
Apologetics Press Web site are permitted).
For catalog, samples, or further information,
contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark
Drive
Montgomery,
Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334)
272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
